Posted on 08/20/2006 8:57:44 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
The full text of the ruling is available in a 36k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)
Maybe, maybe not.
Scary video...you have to love the deputy's comment "if you have nothing to hide..."
Whatever happened in that case?
Highway robbery!
Read John Silvera's comments in the current Backwoods Home :this is no longer the land of the free.
I'd really like to know that myself. The property owner is posting in the comments, as is the apparently neighbor who made the complaint.
Property owner:
You state the property is filthy, , but what makes you think it wasn't being cleaned up? Do you know how long I had owned it? Einstein stated, " Condemnation without Investigation is the height of Ignorance."Possibly the person who made the complaint:
This property is filthy, that is easily seen by the video. Instead of slandering the officials who were sent to resolve the problem, why don't you get off your lazy butt and clean the place up. How can you stand to live in such filth! How can you expect anyone to pay you money for such filth!
Money is not a legal person ... nor should it be.
Hooray for Judge Lay!
Until recently, cash transactions in excess of $10,000 occurred among respectable people (consider that $10,000 could easily fit in a person's wallet) without the government thinking it was any of their business. And 10,000 of the dollars back then would probably be worth $100,000 or more today.
Prohibition II is a massive government power grab. Government creates problems, so it can demand powers to fix them. Of course, the problems keep getting worse (big surprise) so the government needs more power.
Maybe if the government actually wanted to solve problems, they might get solved. But why should it, when it benefits from not doing so?
Lots of federal judges have such brains. For example, the "judge" who ruled against the Bush Administration last week is 74 years old. Now, I love my mother, but I wouldn't trust her to be handing down decisions that are a matter of life and death, or handling anything REAL important.
I'd like to know what the relevant laws are in a case like that. Does a health inspector need a warrant to investigate a property if there is complaint?
I wouldn't think that child protective services would need one if a complaint was made. I wonder if a complaint in situations like this constitutes something like "hot pursuit".
The guy was smart not to try to physically restrain the woman or he would probably be charged with multiple felonies.
I would like to know since when it became illegal to deal in cash?
My grandparents didn't trust banks and pretty much lived their entire lives dealing in cash and money orders.
This is all about government controlling our lives and limiting our freedom.
Maybe he planned to buy a Lamborghini for his mistress. That he's telling an arguably unlikely story is not enough moral basis for taking his money.
Both here and here say that CPS needs a warrant to enter your house without your permission. Those could be state specific though.
Which was why I suggested this as a possible amendment which should prevent these legal shannigans that idiot police departments are doing in order to steal under color of law.
Property shall have the same rights, protections and priviliges as its current owner.
Actually one of the most powerful officers of the law is a game warden. In pursuit of poaching they can do a LOT more than even the most liberal police officer can do.
He appointed the judge who wrote this ruling. His father appointed the other judge who voted for it. (The dissenting judge was appointed by LBJ.)
So if he was guilty, why wasn't he charged with anything?
What ever happened to Sheriff Andy Taylor?
I dunno. It seems to be pretty good at giving the totalitarians the power they want.
Nah. Justice would be a nice big brand in the forhead saying "THIEF".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.